| Literature DB >> 26705403 |
Andrés Valenzuela-Sánchez1, Andrew A Cunningham2, Claudio Soto-Azat3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Body size variation has played a central role in biogeographical research, however, most studies have aimed to describe trends rather than search for underlying mechanisms. In order to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the causes of intra-specific body size variation in ectotherms, we evaluated eight hypotheses proposed in the literature to account for geographical body size variation using the Darwin's frog (Rhinoderma darwinii), an anuran species widely distributed in the temperate forests of South America. Each of the evaluated hypotheses predicted a specific relationship between body size and environmental variables. The level of support for each of these hypotheses was assessed using an information-theoretic approach and based on data from 1015 adult frogs obtained from 14 sites across the entire distributional range of the species.Entities:
Keywords: Hibernation hypothesis; Metabolic depression; Rhinoderma darwinii; Scaled mass index; Starvation resistance
Year: 2015 PMID: 26705403 PMCID: PMC4690379 DOI: 10.1186/s12983-015-0132-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Zool ISSN: 1742-9994 Impact factor: 3.172
Fig. 1a Geographic distribution and (b) latitudinal body size variation (snout-vent length) of sampled Rhinoderma darwinii populations. The species distribution range is showed in the shaded area. (1) Natre (n = 13). (2) Contulmo (39). (3) Villarrica National Park (50). (4) Vergara hot springs (49; from Bourke, 2012). (5) Huilo Huilo (271). (6) Puyehue National Park (29). (7) Senda Darwin Biological Station (11). (8) Chiloé National Park (10). (9) Northern Tantauco (18). (10) Central Tantauco (29). (11) Southern Tantauco (177). (12) Northern Melimoyu (18). (13) Southern Melimoyu (170; from Crump, 2002). (14) Queulat National Park (127)
Hypotheses for biogeographic variation in body size in ectothermic organisms
| Hypothesis | Environmental variable | Predicted effect on body size |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Heat balance | Annual mean temperature (BIO1) | Negative |
| 2. Temperature-size rule | Annual mean temperature (BIO1) | Negative |
| 3. Optimal body temperature | Annual mean temperature (BIO1) | Positive |
| 4. Starvation resistance | Temperature seasonality (BIO4) | Positive |
| 5. Growing season length | Temperature seasonality (BIO4) | Negative |
| 6. Water availability | Annual precipitation (BIO12) | Negative |
| 7. Reverse water availability | Annual precipitation (BIO12) | Positive |
| 8. Primary productivity | NDVIa | Positive |
Environmental variables used in this study to evaluate these hypotheses and their predicted effects on body size are presented
aMean annual Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
Set of candidate linear regression models for mean adult body size (snout-vent length) in Rhinoderma darwinii
| Model | adjusted |
| AICc | Δ |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BIO4(+) | 0.876 | 3 | 40.754 | 0.000 | 0.974 |
| 2 | BIO1(−), BIO4(+) | 0.872 | 4 | 49.005 | 8.252 | 0.016 |
| 3 | BIO4(+), BIO12(+) | 0.865 | 4 | 49.798 | 9.044 | 0.011 |
| 4 | BIO1(−), BIO4(+), BIO12(−) | 0.865 | 5 | 60.490 | 19.736 | 0.000 |
| 5 | BIO1(−) | 0.048 | 3 | 69.296 | 28.542 | 0.000 |
| 6 | BIO12(+) | 0.031 | 3 | 69.540 | 28.787 | 0.000 |
| 7 | NDVI(+) | 0.000 | 3 | 70.392 | 29.638 | 0.000 |
| 8 | BIO12(+), NDVI(+) | 0.042 | 4 | 77.219 | 36.466 | 0.000 |
| 9 | BIO1(−), NDVI(+) | 0.010 | 4 | 77.677 | 36.924 | 0.000 |
| 10 | BIO1(−), BIO12(+) | 0.000 | 4 | 78.108 | 37.354 | 0.000 |
| 11 | BIO1(−), BIO12(+), NDVI(+) | 0.000 | 5 | 89.098 | 48.345 | 0.000 |
The models are ranked by the AICc values from the best to the worst model. Predictor variable names (with the regression coefficient sign), adjusted R 2, number of estimated parameters (K), AICc values, AICc differences (Δ) and Akaike weights (w ), are presented. Environmental variables included in models were: annual mean temperature (BIO1), temperature seasonality (BIO4), annual precipitation (BIO12), and the “Normalized Difference Vegetation Index” (NDVI)
Set of candidate linear regression models for adult body condition (scaled mass index) in Rhinoderma darwinii
| Model | adjusted |
| AICc | Δ |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BIO4(+) | 0.463 | 3 | −7.950 | 0.000 | 0.552 |
| 2 | BIO12(+) | 0.401 | 3 | −6.753 | 1.196 | 0.303 |
| 3 | BIO4(+), BIO12(+) | 0.673 | 4 | −4.458 | 3.492 | 0.096 |
| 4 | BIO1(−) | 0.019 | 3 | −1.331 | 6.619 | 0.020 |
| 5 | NDVI(+) | 0.000 | 3 | 0.020 | 7.970 | 0.010 |
Models with little support (w < 0.01) are not shown. The models are ranked by the AICc values from the best to the worst. Predictor variable names (with the regression coefficient sign), adjusted R 2, number of estimated parameters (K), AICc values, AICc differences (Δ) and Akaike weights (w ), are presented. Environmental variables included in models were: annual mean temperature (BIO1), temperature seasonality (BIO4), annual precipitation (BIO12), and the “Normalized Difference Vegetation Index” (NDVI)
Fig. 2Relationship between temperature seasonality and adult body size (snout-vent length; mean ± SE) in 14 Rhinoderma darwinii populations. Drawings represent the frog body size in a ventral view. (1) Natre. (2) Contulmo. (3) Villarrica National Park. (4) Vergara hot springs. (5) Huilo Huilo. (6) Puyehue National Park. (7) Senda Darwin Biological Station. (8) Chiloé National Park. (9) Northern Tantauco. (10) Central Tantauco. (11) Southern Tantauco. (12) Northern Melimoyu. (13) Southern Melimoyu. (14) Queulat National Park
Fig. 3Spatial correlograms using Moran’s I for mean adult body size (Snout-to-vent length; solid circles) and residuals (open circles) of the best ranked model for body size variation in Rhinoderma darwinii
Fig. 4Independent effects (in percentage) of four environmental variables over adult mean body size of Rhinoderma darwinii calculated with hierarchical partitioning